Topic: The Invention of Hugo Cabret

[Najemikon]

Wasn't sure where to put this. 

I first heard about this book when I read that Martin Scorcese was making the film, so I looked it up. It sounded fascinating, so I decided to take a punt. So glad I did because it's very unique and brilliant.

It's a thick hardback book, with an old fashioned cover style, but the story is told in a mix of pictures and words. Not a comic, not a graphic novel. You open the first pages and it's a sequence of "silent" black and white images, establishing in the way of a film. Then there are a couple of pages of a proper novel, tying together what you have seen. Then it's back to the drawings. It's absolutely captivating!

It could so easily have been a decent artist/writer who has no confidence in either skill trying to jam them together in desperation, but it is actually really special. 

http://www.theinventionofhugocabret.com/about_hugo_intro.htm

http://www.theinventionofhugocabret.com/slideshow_flash.htm

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Invention-Hugo-Cabret-Novel-Pictures/dp/1407103482/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278526103&sr=8-1

[Najemikon]

Well, this thread caused a stir didn't it? 

Whatever, I'm back to try and drum up more interest. I finished the book and in fact, despite it's imposing size, it's a very quick read because of the amount of art. The story is absolutely wonderful.

In the past I've talked about the magic of cinema. How a film is actually a meticulous, crafted piece of manipulated engineering, yet something happens to bring it to life in a way that cannot be explained, nor should you try. That is exactly what this story is about...

Hugo is a boy living in the Paris train station. He hides and steals food he needs, but actually he does have a job of sorts. He'd been taken in by his Uncle following his fathers death and his Uncle is the station timekeeper. He has since disappeared and to avoid the orphanage, Hugo hasn't told anyone. He just keeps the clocks going and no-one is the wiser.

Hugo's father was a clockmaker and had one day found an automaton which he was attempting to repair before he was killed in an accident. The automaton is a clockwork figure sat at a desk with a pen. Wind him up and he'll draw or write something. Hugo has managed to keep the one his father found and is trying to continue the repairs. He has dreamt of what the little man might write; it could be a message from his dad.

To continue the repairs he steals parts from a toymakers booth in the station. The toymaker is a rather sad, quiet old man. He catches Hugo one day and they intrigue each other. The man is upset by Hugo, far more than you might think reasonable. Clearly he was not always a lonely toymaker...

The story is deeply tied in with the history of cinema. Hugo talks about films he has seen, films his father took him to see, etc. The old man turns out to be a retired magician of sorts, but he also turns out to be someone else entirely. Someone haunted by the sound of shoe heels. Someone the world had forgotten about.

The reveal is fantastic and it is a truly beautiful story. It's like a children's fairytale, but if you have any interest at all in the history of film, or even just what cinema means you'll love it. It's an unassuming tale, but very clever and neatly done. The links with theatrical magic and the automaton are perfect for the nature of film at its most pure: the little mechanical man requires a lot of painstaking work and the actual result is unknown and very special.

At the end, they give some information about a real automaton and I've found the little chap on YouTube:



So you see the conceit is that Hugo doesn't know what his automaton was designed to do or who by. The result will change his life. 

I can think of several of you that would get a kick out of this book. Critter would appreciate the unusual way it uses drawings, but moves through the pages like animation/film would. Antares or Hal might like the speculation about silent cinema... I might be wrong, but I'm just trying to show this is worth a punt by any of you.

Martin Scorcese is currently filming the story, with Chloe Moretz playing the old man's granddaughter whom Hugo befriends. It will also be Scorcese's first 3D film. While I don't like 3D overall, the way his editor Thelma Schoonmaker is talking about his approach has me very interested. This is no gimmick and if he has found a way to make it work, properly, then the notion of developing a new way to tell the story suits The Invention of Hugo Cabret so perfectly.

[Dragonfire]

This one does sound interesting.

[dfmorgan]

I did buy this following your initial recommendation above but it has since sat in one of my ever growing TBR piles next to my TBW piles 

Dave

[Najemikon]

Oh, cool! Well, dive, just Dave in... erm... you know what I mean... 

But seriously, it is a quick read and huge value.

[dfmorgan]

Oh, cool! Well, dive, just Dave in... erm... you know what I mean... 

But seriously, it is a quick read and huge value.

OK did just that. I read part one on Sunday, took about 45mins. Then part two last night, just another 30mins.

  A very good book. 

I kinda wondered when the machine drew that picture as to whether the old man was who he turned out to be as they had to have had some relationship to the machine.

Now who will film this - Live action I could see Terry Gilliam but it may suit animation and therefore possibly Tim Burton or Henry Selick

Then again how about turning it on its head and having Michael Bay or Quentin do it 

Dave

[Achim]

Now who will film this - Live action I could see Terry Gilliam but it may suit animation and therefore possibly Tim Burton or Henry Selick

You mean The Invention of Hugo Cabret...? Jon pointed out that Martin Scorcese is already working on it. In 3D, no less

[Najemikon]

Glad you liked it, Dave! 

Now who will film this - Live action I could see Terry Gilliam but it may suit animation and therefore possibly Tim Burton or Henry Selick

You mean The Invention of Hugo Cabret...? Jon pointed out that Martin Scorcese is already working on it. In 3D, no less

Achim! I was going to offer Dave a bet. I was going to give him long odds on any of his choices... 

[dfmorgan]

Dave hangs his head in shame for not re-reading the start of this thread  But then again it was right at the beginning of July.

Dave

[Achim]

The trailer has been released:



I still don't see why this would "need" 3D, but it looks interesting. I hope there will be 2D as well.

[Dragonfire]

I thought the trailer looked good when I saw it..I've seen it twice..when I went to Potter twice.
Anyway, I was thinking it was based on a book..but I forgot about this post and couldn't remember the book. 

[Najemikon]

Thanks for posting the trailer, Achim. I had seen it and intended to dig up this thread and kept forgetting.

I don't know how to feel about this. I stressed, and now double-stress, how beautiful a story this is, how meticulous it is and most important of all, how the history and aspirations of cinema pour out of it. This is an unusual book in that it should leap off the page onto a cinema screen with confidence. Normally you rightly worry that a story will be undone by a foolhardy adaptation, but this felt like it was chomping at the bit to be told exactly the same way.

And who better than Martin Scorcese? He is arguably the most knowledgeable of mainstream directors when it comes to the history of film. His documentary on genre was stunning. If anyone should realise the brilliance of the book, it could be him. I was so convinced by the choice, I even had my fingers crossed about the 3D.

My problem with 3D is that it is impossible to support such a notion in narrative. No matter how well it works, it will always be a gimmick. But such a criticism is based on how we assume films are told. This book represented an opportunity to change that assumption; to make the very mechanics of cinema the point of the story and that could support an audacious use of 3D. One that doesn't throw the audience around, but instead gives a sense of depth throughout and it could have been used to bring a certain twist to magical life, possibly as a tribute to one of the characters. It would be ironic that such a spectacle would have been impossible at the time the story is set, yet it is set at a time when cinema truly was a crazy, magical spectacle. I like that aspect.

Only those that have read the book might understand where my ramblings are coming from, and if you haven't, seek it out immediately. Note Dave's comment... he had the whole thing read in under two hours! A book with a reasonable running time to match a film? That's one of the reasons it screams out to be adapted.

But now the trailers here and already there are problems. Chloe Moretz feels wrong for the part (she looks like she's playing it, rather than being it) and there's clearly a lot of audience friendly slapstick and, it saddens me to say, typical 3D use. The story within that trailer feels smaller than it should.

Unfortunately this all comes from the problem that American fantasy cinema has for many years been stuck in a rut of trying to be the audiences friend first and the story's friend second. Scorcese has never been successful at that and he seems to be trying it again, instead of just concentrating on a love for the story, which I know he must have. Is such cinema his Achilles' Heel? I first saw the trailer at Empire and they made a worrying comment: "Spielbergian". I adore Spielberg's films, but the last time Scorcese tried to ape him we got the messy Cape Fear remake. If only Del Toro wasn't so dependent on monsters! His style would have been emboldened by this story.

Still, there is a heck of a lot that's right in those clips, most of which I don't want to mention for fear of spoilers. I really liked the look of Jude Law, Ray Winstone and... was that Ben Kingsley? It could work yet. My fingers are still crossed very tight, but ironically, I saw Spielberg's Tin-Tin trailer the other day. I had little faith and no interest in that film as it felt like Spielberg had been arm twisted into making it, but it looks magnificent. I really wanted the next generation of entertaining cinema to be in the hands of this wonderful and eccentric story that was a tribute to old cinema, but maybe the man who paved the way thirty years ago is about to prove he's still the real master.

[Achim]

Chloe Moretz feels wrong for the part (she looks like she's playing it, rather than being it)

She's only in it for a few moments, so I wouldn't want to judge the entire film on it. You think she's loosing her touch already...?

was that Ben Kingsley?

It sure was. And he seemed very comfortable in his role.

It could work yet. My fingers are still crossed very tight, but ironically, I saw Spielberg's Tin-Tin trailer the other day. I had little faith and no interest in that film as it felt like Spielberg had been arm twisted into making it, but it looks magnificent.

Who could possibly twist Spielberg's arm...? Trailers are rarely representative of the film; at least story wise. I haven't seen the second trailer yet, but looks don't matter all the much, it's all in the story.

[goodguy]

The trailer looks all sorts of terrible. And the title apparently has been shortened to "Hugo". That it shares with Coppola's upcoming "Twixt Now And Sunrise", now called just "Twixt". But until a trailer destroys all hope there as well, the latter remains the one I'm actually looking forward to.

[Najemikon]

Chloe Moretz feels wrong for the part (she looks like she's playing it, rather than being it)

She's only in it for a few moments, so I wouldn't want to judge the entire film on it. You think she's loosing her touch already...?

No, she's great, but she doesn't fit what I read in the book. In her two most high-profile roles she has played someone significantly older than her years in attitude which wouldn't be quite right here. You might say the tom-boy style suits this character, but I would have preferred someone new, so she doesn't come with preconceptions. Jenny Agutter would have been perfect, except she went and grew up, dammit!  Still, this could be a moot point. I doubt Chloe would be the turning point of the film being good or bad, and if it's good, she'll probably be excellent.

It sure was. And he seemed very comfortable in his role.

Have you read the book, Achim? Now he could be the turning point.

Who could possibly twist Spielberg's arm...? Trailers are rarely representative of the film; at least story wise. I haven't seen the second trailer yet, but looks don't matter all the much, it's all in the story.

Arm twisting was the wrong phrase. It's just Spielberg was always the innovator and resisted digital for a very long time, simply because it wasn't up to par for how he worked. Then suddenly Jackson and Cameron dazzle him with flashing lights and he dives in! I was worried he was going to flop like Zemeckis, but from those clips there is an excellent chance he's going to show them all how it should be done.

I think trailers are very important in these cases. In both, the stories can be taken for granted. We know what they're like and capable of, it's all in how they choose to do it. And although he looks like he's being all excellent and stuff, the slapstick chases with Sacha Baron Cohen make Hugo feel like too much of a kids film. The original book is so tied into the history of silent cinema, it's essential this plays well to adults.

Did you ever read my review of Hue And Cry? I appreciated that because it was made clear this was an adult world, despite it being a kids caper for kids. At times it was real enough to be scary and that's how kids stories should be, not cartoon villains.

Still I hope I'm wrong. I don't think the trailer is at all terrible as Matthias says and at the very least, it could be a magical kids film that falls short of the potential. But no, there was no need to shorten the title, I certainly agree with that.